Question for Atheists

Well johnsky certainly gave me food for thought but now I can't help but wonder if we might actually be able to evolve to the point of evolveing into
the afterlife.
maybe the soul is not a given but something thats earned through evolution.

See, most of my Atheist friends went the opposite route, they started out devoutly religious (or just never really questioned it), and one day
realized, "wait a minute, somethings not right here".

... many who come to the realization that I have had a hard time with the concept that they will cease to exist, it's like a living nightmare to them.
It was to me.

But they're faced with a choice.
1: Continue exploring the realization and face the fears that many people simply cannot function with, yes, this tends to leave you a bit more cynical
in the end.
...or
2: comfort themselves with the faith that there is an afterlife, repressing whatever they may have found which assisted in the decision to turn from
their faith in the first place.

I've consoled ALOT of people in this transition. I don't know why so many manage to fall into my lap, but that's the way the coin flips I suppose.
They usually cry a bit, asking if this is really all there is.
Then it's like a damn switch is thrown, they either find beauty in their realization, or they somehow shove the very thing that shook their faith into
the deep recesses of the mind and become almost violent when reminded of them.

It's abundantly clear to me that religion is used by the mind as a self protection mechanism. Those who can't cope without it become violent toward
the memory of the realization just to protect itself.

That, at least, is how it works moving from Religion to Atheism.
The other way around, who knows.
I began spiritual... couldn't let myself face the possibility of non-existence for the longest time.
Eventually, I just forced myself to contemplate both possibilities, came to a realization.

It wasn't easy... it was, like for those I've consoled... a living freaking nightmare... until it all started to make a beautiful sort of sense. Cold,
but beautiful.

I have had many fall in my lap and ask for advice as well. I guess we just influence people in different ways. I was atheist, now I am agnostic. I
was more religious, became atheist, and then agnostic. It was a slow progression. Atheism was an easy leap for me, but agnosticism was more
difficult. I liked my cold hard reality of it all.

I cannot say if there is an afterlife. I don't think there is one in a sense. If there is, we will never know it, and might as well give up the
notion (that is a tenant of god in agnosticism). No one is reborn to tell their tales, we are all forgotten.

Live life like you will die tomorrow and will never be remembered. You don't matter in the long run. We put daily stresses on ourselves; we are
conditioned for it. That doesn't mean it matters. Moving on...

Personally, I searched long and hard for some answers in all the right (philosophy) and wrong (I will not speak of it) places. I came out of it an
agnostic. If I had to be cold, hard and logical about it, I would still be an atheist.

In the end choosing to believe that this life is all we have is a lot easier than choosing a life not really knowing. It is a nice place to sit
mentally, but can we ever truly know? Either way, both choices are correct. Life is a ride, and when you leave it no one will remember you. Well,
maybe for a little while, but not forever.

It does make a cold beautiful sort of sense in that way, but we will never know what comes after. It is what drives many of us to search for answers.

I believe in a god, but the god I believe in is a group conciousness consisting of every mind to have ever been

You do realise that is the basis of the Rosicrucians beliefs?

I suggest you go and look them up.

Atheists do not believe in God. End of story. I actually never realised what a cult Atheism is in the US. It is not Atheism at all, it is a religion.

Something a bit more in tune with the development on this forum would have been more convincing for your 'cause'. Dusting off old, dead chestnuts
(always ending in semantic blind-alley quibbles) is increasingly being recognized as pure 'tactical' maneuvers, no matter where they come from.

An addition: Some of your later posts milden this impression somewhat, so don't take this as a frontal attack.

atheists still live in exile. they fear to find God. but the choice to experience His existence is clear and is always there.

edit on 5-9-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)

Says who, you ? How can I possibly "fear to find" something which does not exist. There is no God but some people need a crutch to help them through
life because they are not strong enough on their own. Fine not a problem, whatever helps you.

If you are having doubts about your faith then face them but don't attack the messenger!

People only attack what they fear and an awful lot of posts here on ATS suggests a lot of doubt amongst the faithful ! This thread is a prime example
of the fear and doubt that the OP has

would you consider the possibility that god is a technical term for a system or structure that may or may not possess a mind that a human would
recognize?

I personally think that virtually all religions are the equivalent result to how one explains sex and reproduction to a child, ie: Not to be taken
%100 literally but sufficient to keep the basic concepts in play till more experience can be gained.
Don't mock the religious any more then you would mock the child because it wont help anyone to move forward.

It doesn't help anyone to 'move forward' to have speculative fantasies dished out as 'truth' concerning the unknown.

["In Jazz, there's no conductor. Nobody "wrote" the piece. Each musician works off what they hear from the others, and vice versa, resulting in a sway
from chaos to order to chaos to order, back and forth, as each musician does something unexpected and the rest then react to the new pattern and
re-harmonize and re-sync again."]

A very good allegory describing the situation, and suggesting where the 'cutting edge' should be (but isn't because of simplistic and invasive
doctrinalism) between theism and non-theism.

I 'blame' it.....insofar I've understood her...together with the contributor Annee, on the missionary christians, who want extra-parliamentary
privileges.

But there are sensible christians, you can have a dialogue with above the black/white level.

look intelligent design is always a possibility, but when people make up specific gods with all these rules and conditions i feel there is no need for
that in our society
why cant people be happy to say that its possible we have been intelligently designed but we don’t know so why speculate..
plus why should something that has no evidence has such an effect on the world?

statistically its impossible that your specific god is real, but its a lot more probable that 'someone or something' created the universe or life..

look intelligent design is always a possibility, but when people make up specific gods with all these rules and conditions i feel there is no need for
that in our society
why cant people be happy to say that its possible we have been intelligently designed but we don’t know so why speculate..
plus why should something that has no evidence has such an effect on the world?

statistically its impossible that your specific god is real, but its a lot more probable that 'someone or something' created the universe or life..

The concept 'intelligent design' belongs rationally to the same group of 'agnostic' positions as any other theist claim (except for the cases,
where it's possible to reject a theist claim in a 'reality-check').

Originally posted by Raivan31
A question for the Atheists. so you don't believe in a god at all or is it more the concept of intelligent creation? because I believe in a god, but
the god I believe in is a group conciousness consisting of every mind to have ever been and I don't believe in intelligent creation from the very
begining of time but rather as something that has evolved over time to influence the minds that exist in it. I call the structure of the universe the
body of god and the collective conciousness of all things the mind of god, god was born into a system that developed in relation to god and as god
developed it began to manipulate and influence the system.

Sacred geometry has alot to do with me developing this theory as it would suggest a system for the structure of everything including god. I see god as
the catalyst of the universe but not the active creator, at least not to begin with.

Another further question is: don't you feel that there is more to our universe then just it's physical structure?

answer to first question:
I'm an atheist.
I don't believe in a god, not even in your version of it
one of the benefits of being an atheist is that one doesn't have to come up with that dreadful "for me, god is...".

answer to second question:
I'm a non-institutionalized scientist
it would be utterly stupid to "believe" there's only those things explained by science as we speak, for a number of reasons. One such reason is
that science is a play of progressive insight: what we don't know today, we might know tomorrow only to understand the day after tomorrow our model
is false and needs an update.

Originally posted by Raivan31
A question for the Atheists. so you don't believe in a god at all or is it more the concept of intelligent creation?

I don't believe in a God at all. Intelligent creation is a different subject. I don't think we know enough to form a conclusion about an
'intelligence' that had something to do with the way we evolved. To me, clearly there is some form of 'intelligence' going on, but not in the
religious sense of 'intelligent design'.

Another further question is: don't you feel that there is more to our universe then just it's physical structure?

Call me a materialist but I am amused by the people in this thread talking about god in a matter of fact way, when the truth is that it's nothing
more than speculation, wishful thinking and in some cases, outright fantasy. Faith is not proof. Faith is the acceptance of something that has no
proof.

I don't understand why people want to label one thing with a new label, when it already has a name. The Universe is the Universe. Consciousness is
consciousness. Why call them something different? That's like me buying a cat from a pet store, but telling everyone else it's a dog.

Originally posted by Hydroman
I don't understand why people want to label one thing with a new label, when it already has a name. The Universe is the Universe. Consciousness is
consciousness. Why call them something different? That's like me buying a cat from a pet store, but telling everyone else its a dog.

Generally I agree with you. I find these increasingly more complex semantic games around pushing some types of theism annoying.

If the product was rejected the first time, it's cheap and intellectually dishonest to re-wrap it and try again. Sometimes I get the feeling, that
scholasticism is on its way to a revival with all the semantic excesses.

Well I've said my piece, basically what i believe is most probable is this: first there was a mind it's presence created an environment so it
explored it's environment and the environment responded by expanding.

I agree with you - sort of. At least along the same lines.

But - - I will not call it god.

First there was energy. I believe everything is energy. That consciousness/intelligence evolved from energy.

I think humans/earth are layers and layers and layers multiplied removed from the first consciousness and physical creation.

I think the War in Heaven was probably a real war between power/political off planet beings. I think the Olympian Gods - Greek Gods of Mt. Olympus -
Zeus, Dionysus, Hermes, Poseidon, Apollo, Ares, Jupiter, Bacchus, Mercury, Neptune, and Mars - - - is probably based in the reality of more
advanced/evolved off-planet beings.

I think life on earth is pretty low on the totem pole of both natural evolution and terraforming and DNA manipulation.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.